Analysis of metastases rates during follow-up after endoscopic resection of early "high-risk" esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After endoscopic resection (ER) of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the optimal management of patients with high-risk histologic features for lymph node metastases (ie, submucosal invasion, poor differentiation grade, or lymphovascular invasion) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic follow-up after ER for high-risk EAC.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from all Dutch patients managed with endoscopic follow-up (endoscopy, EUS) after ER for high-risk EAC between 2008 and 2019. We distinguished 3 groups: intramucosal cancers with high-risk features, submucosal cancers with low-risk features, and submucosal cancers with high-risk features. The primary outcome was the annual risk for metastases during follow-up, stratified for baseline histology.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients met the selection criteria. Median follow-up was 29 months (interquartile range, 15-48). Metastases were observed in 5 of 25 (annual risk, 6.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-15) high-risk intramucosal cancers, 1 of 55 (annual risk, .7%; 95% CI, 0-4.0) low-risk submucosal cancers, and 3 of 40 (annual risk, 3.0%; 95% CI, 0-7.0) high-risk submucosal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the annual metastasis rate for high-risk submucosal EAC (3.0%) was somewhat lower than expected in comparison with previous reported percentages, the annual metastasis rate of 6.9% for high-risk intramucosal EAC is new and worrisome. This calls for further prospective studies and suggests that strict follow-up of this small subgroup is warranted until prospective data are available.

Significant variation in histopathological assessment of endoscopic resections for Barrett's neoplasia suggests need for consensus reporting: propositions for improvement

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an important diagnostic step in management of patients with early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. Based on ER specimens, an accurate histological diagnosis can be made, which guides further treatment. Based on depth of tumor invasion, differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, the risk of lymph node metastases and local recurrence is judged to be low enough to justify endoscopic management, or high enough to warrant invasive surgical esophagectomy. Adequate assessment of these histological risk factors is therefore of the utmost importance. Aim of this study was to assess pathologist concordance on these histological features on ER specimens and evaluate causes of discrepancy. Of 62 challenging ER cases, one representative H&E slide and matching desmin and endothelial marker were digitalized and independently assessed by 13 dedicated GI pathologists from 8 Dutch BE expert centers, using an online assessment module. For each histological feature, concordance and discordance were calculated. Clinically relevant discordances were observed for all criteria. Grouping depth of invasion categories according to expanded endoscopic treatment criteria (T1a and T1sm1 vs. T1sm2/3), ≥1 pathologist was discrepant in 21% of cases, increasing to 45% when grouping diagnoses according to the traditional T1a versus T1b classification. For differentiation grade, lymphovascular invasion, and margin status, discordances were substantial with 27%, 42%, and 32% of cases having ≥1 discrepant pathologist, respectively. In conclusion, histological assessment of ER specimens of early BE cancer by dedicated GI pathologists shows significant discordances for all relevant histological features. We present propositions to improve definitions of diagnostic criteria.

Adherence to pre-set benchmark quality criteria to qualify as expert assessor of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus biopsies - towards digital review of Barrett's esophagus

Background

Dysplasia assessment of Barrett’s esophagus biopsies is associated with low observer agreement; guidelines advise expert review. We have developed a web-based review panel for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus biopsies.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to test if 10 gastrointestinal pathologists working at Dutch Barrett’s esophagus expert centres met pre-set benchmark scores for quality criteria.

Methods

Ten gastrointestinal pathologists twice assessed 60 digitalized Barrett’s esophagus cases, enriched for dysplasia; then randomised (7520 assessments). We tested predefined benchmark quality criteria: (a) percentage of ‘indefinite for dysplasia’ diagnoses, benchmark score ≤14% for all cases, ≤16% for dysplastic subset, (b) intra-observer agreement; benchmark score ≥0.66/≥0.39, (c) percentage agreement with ‘gold standard diagnosis’; benchmark score ≥82%/≥73%, (d) proportion of cases with high-grade dysplasia underdiagnosed as non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus; benchmark score ≤1/78 (≤1.28%) assessments for dysplastic subset.

Results

Gastrointestinal pathologists had seven years’ Barrett’s esophagus-experience, handling seven Barrett’s esophagus-cases weekly. Three met stringent benchmark scores; all cases and dysplastic subset, three met extended benchmark scores. Four pathologists lacked one quality criterion to meet benchmark scores.

Conclusion

Predefined benchmark scores for expert assessment of Barrett’s esophagus dysplasia biopsies are stringent and met by some gastrointestinal pathologists. The majority of assessors however, only showed limited deviation from benchmark scores. We expect further training with group discussions will lead to adherence of all participating gastrointestinal pathologists to quality criteria, and therefore eligible to join the review panel.